THEORY

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Farlander, Dec 5, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Farlander

    Thread Starter Active Member

    Oct 14, 2008
    158
    0
    In theory, couldn't a car with a bunch of electromagnets attached to the outside of it be a hovercraft, by using the magnetic field of the earth? The magnets would change in strength and polarity as necessary to maneuver the vehicle.
     
  2. Papabravo

    Expert

    Feb 24, 2006
    10,157
    1,796
    No. The strength of the Earth's magnetic field is far too weak to support a vehicle and a driver. It can move a compass needle, deflect elementary particles in the solar wind, and that's about it. Where do you get your clever notions?
     
  3. leftyretro

    Active Member

    Nov 25, 2008
    394
    2
    Great idea, better get a patient quick. And then just wait for some serious improvements in batteries or someone actual building a portable Mr. Fusion.
     
  4. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Sounds like something I read during the 50's and 60's, to explain how flying saucers fly. Wasn't too plausable back then, even less so nowdays.

    Kinda hard to couple to a North South field line. You can couple to a up down field OK, but you would tend to slide sideways throught the Earths orientation.
     
  5. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Yes, but that is where Einstein screwed up. His theory was based on the idea that using language to solve a problem would make his theory correct. Unfortunately for most of physicists at the time, they couldn't attack the golden cow. And still cannot. The force of the earth's magnetic field is very weak, otherwise, your ordinary magnet would be able to fly from one side of the room to another.
    Keep on keeping on, your ideas, while not effective, are the stuff of change. Also, I, and many Sci-fi writers thought of it.
    Don't mean it don't work, just hasn't been worked out.
    Dan
     
  6. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    Huh? Where does Einsteins theories fit into this? This isn't gravity or bent space time, and language has nothing to do with it, just math. Magnetism is fairly well understood, and while levitation has been achieved, it was under well understood setups.
     
  7. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Mr. Bill,
    I wasn't responding to your post, but the original post. I was using a metaphor(?) to explain a point. Excuse me if I led you astray.
    Dan
     
  8. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    What is the point your metaphor is explaining?

    Einstein had little to say about cows, golden or otherwise.

    Magnetic levitation is problematic around the poles, as described in John W. Campbell's (using pen name Don A. Stuart) "Who Goes There?".
     
  9. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Beenthere,
    I understand your query. And with all due respect to you, as a supermoderator, I was responding to farlander, and no one else. My point is, there are ideas that, while mathematicaly unsound, are a way to lead those to an answer that might lead another to a salient answer.
    Please understand, some ideas, while wacky to you, may be the next nuclear reaction. Just have to keep away the slobs that only believe college professors are the be-all to end-all.
    Einstein was, and is, an idiot. There is no way his theory works. Photon, anyone? Maybe a savant, but no more. Try it.
    Dan
     
  10. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    You post public, it is public, open to public response, you want private, use PM (Private Mail).

    I know what Einstein has done, his accomplishments speak for themselves. He was wrong in a few particulars, but for the most part his theories are still being proved correct. I have no clue who you are, what you've done, and what your qualifications are. All I can judge is your posts, as I can Einstein by his works. He was the preeminent physicist of the 20th century. His biggest failing is not incorporating quantum physics into his work (dismissed the field as "God does not play dice with the Universe"), but people are still building on what he did.

    I say this not to offend, but it's pretty self evident. BTW, do you usually refer to the deceased as "is an idiot"?

    You ought to read his biography. He wasn't a college professor when most of his work was done. When he published the theory of relativity he was a patent clerk for the Swiss Patent Office. He was also an inventor, helping the US improve a major flaw in the torpedo's at the beginning of WWII, along with quite a few other inventions. In other words, the kind of man you say you are trying to represent. He was able to advance his theories with mathematics, of which there is no substitute in science. Other people have proved the majority of them out, such as warped space, time dilation, speed of light as a limit, and more. He was made a professor because of his many contributions, but most of the contributions came first.

    So which of his many theories do you disagree with, and what do you propose to replace them with? Me, I think e=mc² worked out pretty well.

    Note to the mods, I think I'm drifting a bit off field here, you might want to split this off into another thread.
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2008
  11. beenthere

    Retired Moderator

    Apr 20, 2004
    15,815
    282
    I think you are confusing people like Edison, who employed hundreds of people to make his ideas into reality (the infinite number of monkeys effect), and a researcher who uses past knowledge to induce some new discovery.

    I think you are now on record as having stated that Dr. Einstein "was an idiot". He's dead, so he isn't one now. Some of us would be interested in how you arrived at this conclusion. While a poor aeronautical engineer, and unsuccessful designer of refrigeration equipment, he did impress the world in the area of physics.

    Perhaps you know more than the rest of us?

    Perhaps you meant "sacred" instead of "golden" cows?
     
  12. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Mr Bill,
    What part of impossible do you not realise? As I stated before, photon. Or are there not photons? E=mc^2, is probably the most misunderstood equation the public knows. It is impossible, that is why he used language to slove a mathematical equation, not a mathematical problem. Einstein's idea created a mathematical where none existed before. And to this day does not exist. Simple math solves almost any math problem, no matter how complicated mathematicians try to complicate it.
    Beenthere,
    Think of Einstein as a bartender. He took good liquor and made a good drink, did little on his own, but made you like him because you didn't make a good martini. I have no problem argueing Einstein and his stupid theories. But be warned, I will ask that the other side prove their theories, not just use existing professorial blatherings having no back-up other than " That's is what in the books." And, yes, "golden" cow is what I meant. Check the Torah.
    Dan
     
  13. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    We're talking science, not religion, and like it or not, math is the language of science. E=MC² is the math that describes matter, graphically proven to be true in war. Wishful thinking don't make it so, nor is calling people you can't understand names. Einstein didn't use verbal sophistry to describe his theories, but I don't see you using math. Hmmmm....

    As for proving his theories, your lack of science education is showing. The proofs started in the 30's, and continues on going. Truth, I don't need to prove anything, other people have done this much better than I could ever do. I prefer reading.

    I've been through calculus, I'd hesitate to call it simple. It isn't even the close to the top math anymore. What is the highest math course you've passed?
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2008
  14. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    This is just nonsense. Everyone here knows that Einstein was a genius of the highest order. More than any other scientist he was far ahead of his time. If you think any of your blathering makes any sense at all, you need a doctor, - and fast. Seriously! That's the only reason I'm responding to you, - to beg you to seek the help you obviously need.

    Einstein developed revolutionary theories, particularly the special and general relativity. They were so revolutionary that noone of his time accepted them at first. However, every one of his predictions was eventually proven experimentally. Maybe someday another genius will extend his theories, but they are too well established to ever be proven wrong. No doubt they are incomplete, but that's the nature of science: to keep moving forward - not backward as misguided souls as yourself would suggest.
     
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2008
  15. Wendy

    Moderator

    Mar 24, 2008
    20,766
    2,536
    I suspect we're being baited... <shrug>
     
  16. steveb

    Senior Member

    Jul 3, 2008
    2,433
    469
    I won't be baited. I'm not looking to debate or argue about this topic. But, ethically I have to say something when someone is in need of help. He's a nice guy, but his comments clearly show mental imbalance that should be treated.
     
  17. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    "Photon" is not a statement. If you wish to use the existence of a photon to disprove one of Einstein's theories, please be specific. Use math, not empty words.
     
  18. floomdoggle

    Senior Member

    Sep 1, 2008
    217
    2
    Mr Bill, Mr Steveb,
    Explain how a particle accelerator works within Einstein's theory. I'm talking math, not your ability to diagnose my mental state.
    "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent", you sign, shall we diagnose your verbal violence against me? Argue the point, not your beliefs.
    If I wanted to bait someone to start a debate, I certainly would not use the golden cow of physics. As I stated earlier, my point to Farlander was to encourage his thoughts about thinking idealistic thoughts, not to start fights because someone is too lazy to do any research on a subject.
    Dan
     
  19. thingmaker3

    Retired Moderator

    May 16, 2005
    5,072
    6
    This thread serves no useful purpose.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.